See a post that violates the rules below? Had your post stuck in the spam filter? Have a question about policy? Just want to give feedback? Send the mod team a message.

Please post news items only, with the exception of meta posts about /r/news itself. Self-posts aggregating news data and "independent reporting" each count as news, but are not an excuse to editorialize.

Cole is a Pinellas County State Trooper.
He shot Work while searching for a stolen motorcycle at a cemetery.
The stolen motorcycle belongs to a former Pinellas County Deputy.
A deputy who got fired for having sex . . . in a cemetery.

"He was in the graveyard for a valid purpose. Unfortunately, things happen. It is what it is."

"Things happen" works when you step on someone's toe, or you get into a fender bender. That excuse isn't as valid when you use attempted deadly force on a private citizen on his own property. It's either, "Yes, I was justified in the shooting due to valid, documented circumstances," or "no, this shooting was unjustified."

That part infuriated me. That's just unacceptable that a spokesman for the department would say something that fucking retarded. It is what it is. Is what's going on in the middle east just "what it is"? That guy should be fired right the fuck now. :)

"Things happen. It is what it is" isn't even acceptable in a fender bender. SOMEBODY fucked up. In this case, somebody REALLY fucked up, and I have a feeling Work isn't going to have to do a whole lot more of that in the foreseeable future (unless he just damn well feels like it).

"Just because he acted properly or improperly in the past doesn't mean this act is proper or improper," said FHP spokesman Sgt. Steve Gaskins. "He was in the graveyard for a valid purpose. Unfortunately, things happen. It is what it is."

I'm not sure if Cole is fit to be a police officer, but I'm very certain that Gaskins is not fit to be a spokesman...

Did you read the article? Put yourself in the shoes of a cop, you are conducting a traffic stop and the driver is repeatedly ignoring your commands to show his hands, THEN he suddenly makes a movement as if to grab something. What would you do?

Cops have a dangerous job and they need to ensure their own safety at all times. A CHP officer was killed just over a week ago, while yes, performing a traffic stop:

Well, I was just making a statement about the irony of a shootat being called a shootout, but if we must....

Cops sign up for a dangerous job. That's the thing that seems to get lost in your argument. The average citizen does not. Far from it. In fact, the citizens pay the cops out of their own pockets to protect them from this kind of thing. I'm too lazy to look up the statistics right now, but I can tell you that the average citizen is like eight times more likely to get shot by a cop than vice versa. That statistic is disgusting, especially when you consider that the cops are there to prevent exactly what they are causing. Wanton violence by protectors can not be justified with self interest.

I work in the fire service, and I can tell you right now that if I was to just let people die in a fire eight times more often than I saved them, I would not be very good at my job. I signed up for a dangerous job, and I accept that. I go in to save the idiots that blew up their kitchen cooking a turkey. It's their fault, and puts me at risk, but that's what I'm there for. I think we need more of this "public servant" attitude among police, rather than the "enforcer" attitude.

That being said, I really think that their job is unnecessarily dangerous. More accountability would really step things up on both sides. There's very little reasonable occasion in this day and age for one lone cop to confront an armed civilian. It should be handled in a recorded and professional manner, so that these kinds of situations would never arise.

My point is, we have the technology to record these encounters, establish protocol, and leave zero question on when it's appropriate to just ask a dude what he's doing in a cemetery, and when you should need to put a guy down on a California highway to save an officers life. There's a time for both, and it's the unanswered legitimacy of these shootings that leads to such social strife.

Anyway, your statistic is very skewed. Cops are very easily identified by their uniforms, therefore it would be very difficult for the average citizen to accidentally shoot them. However, when the police go up against criminal elements, they are normally dressed no different than a typical bystander and they can only judge whether they are dangerous by the suspects' actions, which is sometimes not so clear cut.

As a firefighter, you arrive at the scene. The house is on fire. You are basically shooting water at ALL of the fire. Fire is obviously very identifiable. But what if you were NOT allowed to fight fire with water but you were required to approach the scene first, have a look around and ONLY take it out once it starts burning your clothing?

Actually a shootout is not just "any fight involving guns". According to Merriam Webster a shootout (referring to a fight and not a gaming competition or a broad term for any kind of showdown) is "a battle fought with handguns or rifles"

Not just a fight involving a firearm, a fight with handguns or rifles. Plural.

What nonchalance over a serious incident. It's as almost if he already knows that the "investigation" will clear the officer of wrongdoing and the whole thing will be quickly pushed aside in favor of business-as-usual. But how could he possibly know that?

I don't know. I believe in innocent until proven guilty, but...I just think your title is a little misleading and sensational. We don't know why Cole shot Work. We don't know if it's justified or not. We can assume some things based on past experience, but it does not mean Cole will always act in a "bad" way. As my dad always says, "Assume makes an ass out of you and me." We need more information before we jump to conclusions.

In this instance the cop was following the LoJack signal from a recently stolen motorcycle into a garage at the back of the cemetery. In this garage he found the cemetery owner armed. I don't think we know enough to say that the shot man was "innocent" in any way (per OP title) although the article says he has no prior record. The article does not mention of the stolen bike was there or not, or the circumstances surrounding the shooting.

It's not uncommon for someone in the hospital for a few days after being shot to not be immediately charged while an investigation is conducted. Legally speaking of course he is presumed innocent. However outside of the courtroom in layman discussion, to describe him specifically as "innocent" implies some degree of knowledge about the circumstances of the encounter. What I'm saying is that we don't know and it is vastly premature to form an opinion about fault in a state of ignorance of what happened.

I don't know enough about the previous incident to comment on that. Seeing as he is still a cop that must mean it was either justified or an accident. It could be a corrupt system, but I don't like to jump to conclusions without evidence.

Seeing as he is still a cop that must mean it was either justified or an accident.

He's suspended while the investigation is carried out. The outcome of that investigation determines whether or not there is a charge for the officer to answer.

At this point it is not determined. That's the whole point of the officer currently being suspended. You can't leave an officer on duty until the matter is investigated, but at the same time you don't just throw an officer's career away immediately without investigating.

He (and 2 other officers) were approached by the armed suspect. We don't know if he was actually brandishing this gun or not, but people really need to stop jumping to conclusions. I can guarantee you that he didn't just shoot someone because he felt like it, there was probably a reason, legitimate or not.

I'd advise not to pass judgement until you have all the facts. Truth is, we have no idea what happened and I'm not going to convict a man based on what the media trickles out for the masses to wallow in.

The LoJack signal was traced to his property - what makes you think he wasn't the thief? I can steal a motorcycle and park it on my property, doesn't give me the right to shoot the cops when they come looking for it.

I'm not saying the man is/isn't guilty. I'm saying the article contains about half a paragraph's worth of useful facts and OP's title contains a lot of sensationalism with little to back it up.

Probable cause is what they would use to get the warrant. It is most certainly does not allow them to search private land and buildings on that land without a warrant. For that they would need exigent circumstances.

Just because it is private doesn't mean the cops have to wait at the entrance of the cemetary because it's private property. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy to private property open to the public. So, generally, if someone from the public could go to that same spot legally, the cops can too - without a warrant.

If cops have probable cause, that means they can successfully ask a judge for a warrant. There are a list of exceptions, called exigent circumstances, where a warrant isn't needed. Those are basically limited to when somebody is in danger, or there is a likelihood of evidence being destroyed. Following a lo-jack signal to a stationary object doesn't qualify for any of those exceptions.

Thank you for providing one of the few unbiased opinions here on this thread. Reddit in general has the tendency to downvote and pro-police opinions, regardless of whether their actions were justified or not.

Let's not forget "a year ago tased a fleeing handcuffed woman resulting in brain damage", a completely unnecessary addition added to make the cop look like a "bad cop". While it's unfortunate she suffered brain damage, If you resist arrest, you're gonna get tased.

It's not a question..It's a statement.If I worked for someone"neverless the public" I would hope I was held to a higher standerd.You're going to have that many incidents and my taxes are still paying him during the investigation?? Fuck him,fire his ass like any other job.Period.

Yes, you are paying him because we don't fire people without wrongdoing. That's why there is an investigation. Police officers are involved in multiple "incidents" because the job includes going into sketchy situations. Sometimes they do the wrong thing. Not every shooting is a rogue cop trying to murder civilians.

For all you know the owner ran out of the house with his gun trained on the officers after they loudly and clearly identified themselves. The article draws conclusions about a situation it has very little info on, don't make the same mistake. (Please note I'm not arguing the cop is not at fault, I'm arguing that we don't know)

For all you know the man was standing on the pavement with his hands up, fully cooperating while the officer shot him unprovoked. See? They both sound moronic. I don't believe the officer can be assumed guilty based on this. However the article is all that's available and right now it doesn't look good for fhp.

I was just responding to thattreesguy's comment assuming that the officer shot with no intention of self defense by saying that we just don't know the circumstances. I'll agree that a law abiding citizen getting shot like this means something went wrong, but until we know the details, there's no way we can judge anyone for their actions.

I will say again I am not trying to defend people but it needs to be said because of the anti-cop circle jerk but... A lot of shootings involve people reaching for things and the officer over reacting/reacting. Sometimes they are right and they shoot someone who is about to pull a gun and shoot them and other times they are wrong and innocent people die. Are you the one to judge them? Are you trained to deal with any of these situations? Do you know the facts 100% in these cases?

A big deal is made of teachers unions etc. but the real drags on state budgets are the police unions that keep defunct officers on the force, the same ones costing their cities millions of dollars in settlements. It's just easier to pick on teachers I suppose

Ok some one help me out. Dont you need a search warrant to search private property? Couldn't all this have been avoided by going to the front door, knocking on the door, announcing "hey I am a cop, I have a warrant to search your property", then search the property?

No. You only need a search warrant to search property where someone has a reasonable expectation of privacy. If the area is open to the public, you do not need a warrant to enter it.

Couldn't all this have been avoided by going to the front door, knocking on the door, announcing "hey I am a cop, I have a warrant to search your property", then search the property?

Maybe? But that's assuming that getting a piece of paper magically stops people from displaying or shooting firearms at cops while serving search warrants - which it doesn't. So we don't know enough about the situation right now to say whether getting a warrant and knocking and announcing would have prevented this.

I understand that the cemetery would be open to the public but what about the garage? If I were a Florida cop, I dont think I would enter someone's property unannounced, for a damn motocycle. Florida isn't exactly short on guns.

First: The first incident happened when a handcuffed woman tried to flee. Tasering her was a completely valid form of stopping her. The fact that she hit her head was very unfortunate, but if she is running after being arrested he can try and stop her.

Second: The second incident happened when a man looked like he was reaching down to get something after being repeatedly told to put his hands up. If he had a gun he could of picked it up and shot the cop right there. The fact that he didn't actually have a gun does not matter at all. The officer had no idea if he did or did not and took a necessary precaution. I have to ask what would you have done in the situation?

Third: The third incident happened when the officer was investigating a motorcycle theft. He saw a guy with a gun. He unintelligently shot him because he thought that the man was connected to the crime. It was very stupid of him and he shouldn't have been so quick to shoot, but that was not a power trip.

The notion that simply because someone is unarmed it means you shouldn't taser them is ridiculous. What if we replaced "high woman" with "300 pound meat-head" or "professional sprinter". If they were running away I don't think the cop would think twice before tasering them. The fact that she was high puts a whole new twist on the story and I am not sure where to put it in, but my original comments were posted when I did not have that information. Still, I think my points continue to be valid. '

Furthermore, I don't really know if him being a trained cop changes anything. For all we know (since it wasn't posted in the article), the cop could be a slow old man. I don't really see where being a trained cop makes you more able to chase down someone.

I'm sorry but using a deadly weapon (which a taser is) against a restrained person who is running away is NOT a valid use of a deadly weapon. What, is he too fat to sprint up and grab her? She is running. A valid use of a deadly weapon is if you are being attacked. An invalid use of a deadly weapon is using it on a person who is not a threat to anyone.

At the worst this is an instance of blindingly, dangerously poor judgment. At no point does the article, despite making assumptions about a complicated situation based on vague details, imply that the cop was on any sort of power trip.

I'm sorry, how is tasing a woman who is handcuffed justified in any instance? The taser is to be used as a non-lethal alternative to the service revolver. With this in mind, when would if have ever been justified to shoot a woman in handcuffs? What the fuck ever happened to chasing them down and, oh I don't know, catching them maybe?

Yesterday, a Texas cop physically dragged a 77 year old woman from her vehicle, and she hit the ground pretty hard. Almost everyone in the thread supported the cop, when I'm thinking "there's no excuse for this". He could have called for a female backup who might could have calmed the situation and talked the lady out of the car.

I really don't get people sometimes. I feel like I'm on the wrong planet.

The taser is to be used as a non-lethal alternative to the service revolver. With this in mind, when would if have ever been justified to shoot a woman in handcuffs?

No, it's not. There is no "alternative" to the service revolver (which no cops carry anymore....)

There is less than lethal force (which the taser falls under) and there is deadly force.

Which is probably why you're not understanding the reason for using a taser on a handcuffed person. It is not an alternative, so one would never shoot a handcuffed suspect that was simply running away. It's an alternative use of less than lethal force though, so he could have hit or kicked her, used his baton to strike her, or tackled her. It's far safer to tase someone than it is for that 275lbs person to run and tackle a 125lbs person - same for hitting, kicking, and striking someone with a baton. Sure, in that situation, she hit her head and went into a coma - but there are far less incidents of things like that happening than someone dropping dead from getting punched or kicked or being put into a coma from getting tackled.

Honest question: Why is tasering a handcuffed person (physics dictates that if you tase a handcuffed person, they will almost undoubtedly hit their head) the go-to response, rather than simply grabbing that individual (who, again, is already handcuffed)?

The taser was originally for taking down a dangerous individual. It was a way to stop a person that was fighting back. It is a gross violation of human rights to use it for compliance. Everyday the news runs stories of people tased for not responding to instructions. There is a big difference between a threat and an uncooperative person.

What the fuck is going on in Florida? Earlier this year my friend Seth Adams got shot and killed while being unarmed, shortly after the whole treyvon Martin incident. Not going to Florida anytime soon.

While he may not have committed a crime, if the officers are telling the truth and emerged arm (gun in hand) I can't blame the officers for shooting. When someone is armed the officer has to make a split second decision that can result in loss of life wither it is the suspect or the officer. To often the public has watched too many movies and they get the impression that they would have been able to react in a much more logical way an easily resolved the situation. If you have never been in this situation or had a gun pointed at you, you might want to wait before you condemn the officer.

Just because he acted properly or improperly in the past doesn't mean this act is proper or improper," said FHP spokesman Sgt. Steve Gaskins. "He was in the graveyard for a valid purpose. Unfortunately, things happen. It is what it is.

I'm sorry, but if the same officer is having multiple firearms/taser related incidents all against unarmed (or lawfully armed) citizens then something is wrong.

Its usually their own damn for fault for getting arrested too. That doesn't make it ok for any sort of misconduct from police officers. Given the power cops have in our country they should be held to a higher standard. Mistakes and misconduct shouldn't be given the "things happen, it is what it is" excuse. We would through a shit fit if that happened at a restaurant as an excuse for bad service, pretty sure we should hold people who have the authority to uses deadly force to a higher standard.

Wasn't she hand cuffed? How far can a taser gun shoot? Was the distance so great that the officer couldn't simple chase her? Would she have been able to brace her fall if she wasn't hand cuffed? I am not claiming that the officer acted in a malicious way, but I think its fair to at least question the actions he took. The actions of the officer resulted in her injuries plain and simple. That doesn't mean there was misconduct, but whenever someone is injured it needs to be investigated.

I'm just dieing to see the headline where one of these power tripping trigger happy pigs gets their head blown off by people sick of their shit. I used to think that rappers like Ice T were exaggerating about cops and brutality; no wonder their music caught on hard.

This is bullshit. I show up for work late 3 times and my ass would be fired. This guy, who is supposed to be held more accountable than civilians, shoots an unarmed man in the hand for a traffic stop, tasers a handcuffed woman who subsequently gets brain damage from hitting her head in the collapse, and shoots a man with no criminal history and a CWP is on paid leave.

By all means, keep him on the pay roll. Pillar of your community......

"It is what it is" is the most bullshit mealymouthed shit-brained cop-out turn of phrase to ever infiltrate the common american lexicon. What does that shit even mean? Is shooting someone in their place of work an irreducibly complex instance of "bad luck," and we should look no further? Because that's what FHP spokesman Sgt. Steve Gaskins seems to be saying.